JT v First-Tier Tribunal

JT v First-Tier Tribunal

The 'same roof' rule in para 19 of the 2012 Scheme, which excludes victims who lived with their assailant as family members before 1 October 1979 from compensation, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR. The rule discriminates on the status of living as a family member with the assailant, is not objectively justified, and is manifestly without reasonable foundation. There is no rational connection between the rule and its purported aims, and it is inconsistent with the scheme's purpose and principles. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to apply the rule in JT's case.

Parties
Appellant: JT; Respondent: First-tier Tribunal; Interested Party: Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Upper Tribunal (administrative Appeals) Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR, Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, Retrospective Application of Statutory Rules, Legitimate Expectation and Proportionality, Judicial Review of Subordinate Legislation
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Discrimination Under Article 14 ECHR Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Retrospective Application of Statutory Rules Legitimate Expectation and Proportionality Judicial Review of Subordinate Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JT

Appellant

First-tier Tribunal

Respondent

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

Interested Party

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Upper Tribunal (administrative Appeals) Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 'same roof' rule in para 19 of the 2012 Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, by discriminating against victims who lived with their assailant as family members before 1 October 1979.
  2. 2 Whether the difference in treatment is on a status protected by Article 14.
  3. 3 Whether the difference in treatment is objectively justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The 'same roof' rule in para 19 of the 2012 Scheme, which excludes victims who lived with their assailant as family members before 1 October 1979 from compensation, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR. The rule discriminates on the status of living as a family member with the assailant, is not objectively justified, and is manifestly without reasonable foundation. There is no rational connection between the rule and its purported aims, and it is inconsistent with the scheme's purpose and principles. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to apply the rule in JT's case.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Upper Tribunal set aside
  • Decision of the First-tier Tribunal quashed